list_identities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates that it lists information but does not describe any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it requires authentication, what happens with invalid numbers, or if it returns all contacts or only those with safety numbers).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on purpose and scope. Minor omission: it does not describe the return format or what happens if no contacts exist, but completeness is sufficient for this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already states 'Filter to a specific contact (optional)'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists identity keys and trust levels for contacts, specifically for safety number verification. It uses the verb 'list' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from mutation tools like 'trust_identity'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for viewing safety number verification status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trust_identity'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.